Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Patterson, what is the nature of these Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco? Are they rebels against the French rule who have fled to these neighboring Arab States? Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, these are not political refugees; these are refugees who are fleeing from the fighting, who have lost their homes or are living on the borders in areas where there is danger of their losing their homes. And they have fled to frontier areas in the two neighboring countries to east and west, where they have been living in very miserable conditions.

Senator GRUENING. Have you any idea as to their numbers?

Mr. PATTERSON. Their total number is estimated to be about 250,000-150,000 in Tunisia and 100,000 in Morocco; and they are under the general auspices of the U.N. High Commissioner for refugees, and various groups are helping them under the general umbrella of the U.N. High Commissioner.

Senator GRUENING. Are they living together in some sort of camps or are they scattered?

Mr. PATTERSON. They are scattered in and along the frontier areas, living in makeshift shelters of any kind that they have been able to construct. And many of our experienced refugee workers say that their conditions this past winter have been among the worst of any refugees' in their experience.

Senator GRUENING. Do you know whether there is any desire on the part of any of them to go back to Algeria?

Mr. PATTERSON. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, they hope to get back to their homes at such time as they may be able when the fighting in Algeria ceases.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Mr. Patterson.
Mr. BLACKFORD. Mr. Chairman-

Senator GRUENING. I would like to ask the representative of the State Department to give us a report on these Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco. I would like to know, I think the committee would like to know the reasons for their leaving Algeria, what their desires are, whether these are going to be permanent exiles, whether they would like to return to their country, what their prospects are, whether they constitute a more or less permanent group in exile from Algeria, to give us a better understanding of the problems, if we could have that information.

The number cited by Mr. Patterson seems quite formidable; 250,000 is a very substantial number.

Do you think we could get that information?

Mr. MURPHY. I am not sure we will be able to answer all those questions, but we will certainly look into it, Senator, and do our best.

Senator GRUENING. Well, as much information as you can get will certainly be appreciated.

Mr. MURPHY. We will be glad to do that.*

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLACKFORD. May I just add one short paragraph?

Senator GRUENING. Yes, indeed.

Mr. BLACKFORD. Mr. Patterson mentioned the usefulness of tents. At this moment in Chile, where the earthquakes and tidal waves

* See letter to Senator McClellan, dated June 10, 1960, p. 22.

have occurred, from Santiago on south there are nearly 2 million people or some 62 percent of the population of the area absolutely helpless in the middle of the Chilean winter. Our agencies, all of our agencies, are now trying to provide them in any way possible with temporary shelter, with anything that will keep them alive. We have a demand for tents, tents, tents. If such legislation as is proposed here were now in effect, use of any surplus shelter of this type could be made, contributing greatly to the interest of humanitarianism, and incurring nothing but great good will for the United States.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. We have been very happy to have you.

Mr. KINNEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRUENING. Now, is there anyone else who wants to testify and is here to testify on S. 2725 and S. 2732? Is Mr. Lowell here?

Mr. LOWELL. Yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Would you come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF C. STANLEY LOWELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PROTESTANTS AND OTHER AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. LOWELL. Mr. Chairman, my name is C. Stanley Lowell. I am associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is a group predominantly Protestant, including more than 100,000 members, whose top executives include either the present or the past highest officials of the three major denominational groups in the United States-Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian.

Now, we concede, quickly, Mr. Chairman, that the existence of a vast amount of surplus military equipment and property abroad presents the Government with an unprecedented and complex problem in regard to the distribution of these items for their continued

We concede, further, that the proposal to distribute these items not only to State sponsored and controlled institutions, but also to those of sectarian groups is one which has imposing arguments on both sides. It is only after long consideration that we have felt it necessary to make what I may call a precautionary appearance in regard to this particular principle in the proposed legislation. There are two sides, certainly, to this proposal to include missionary groups as recipients; we feel that it may be the preponderance of evidence is on the negative side.

If this property is made available to missionary groups-hospitals, schools, and other institutions, it will be accepted by them and much of it will, no doubt, be put to good use. The members of this committee and church officials must not forget, however, how the entire missionary cause has suffered in decades past because of its alleged association with Western States and their ambitions. Again and again, the effectiveness of missionary work has been blunted or destroyed by the charge that the missionaries were serving the interest of Western imperialism. Now, there has been very little truth to

these charges, but their effectiveness in crippling missionary operations has been all out of proportion to the minimal truth. We stress the matter because the legislation here proposed gives preference to American organizations, and we feel, therefore, that missionary groups will be deeply involved.

The rising tide of nationalism in Africa, Asia, and scarcely less so in South America, has accentuated difficulties of the missionary program. In order to cope with the problems, they are now accelerating a process of transferring control of church enterprises to nationals of the countries in which they exist. This step has been taken by so many missionary boards in so many areas that we may describe it as one of the basic policies of the foreign missionary movement today. At least so far as Protestant missionary activity is concerned, such a program seems to be general.

Now, what we have to weigh is the effect of these donations of surplus military equipment on the missionary schools and hospitals. Will this tend to re-create the very image that we are trying to efface? To equip these institutions with such materials and properties may well suggest a tie between the U.S. military and the missionary enterprise which will not work to the advantage of either.

It is our feeling that the missionary enterprise of the churches abroad might be more effectively pursued if it did not rely at all on the Government, but only upon such donations as it can receive both from individuals in the countries involved and in the United States. We are suggesting, perhaps, that the enterprise may be better received and more effective if it is not too big. Its operations must not rival those of the state. Missionary work should never try to become the loaf, but only the leaven in the loaf. To strengthen and widen its program with equipment supplied by the U.S. Government may seem to provide a short-term advantage, but in the long run may impede rather than accelerate.

Now, there are other features of our foreign aid program which offer parallels to these proposals. One of them is the surplus commodities distribution via church agencies. And we do believe, Mr. Chairman, that serious doubts as to the wisdom of this program have been raised by its operation to this point. We understand that the program is supposed to be audited by the CIA, but that it has not been audited because there is no appropriation for the purpose. Despite the lavish praise of the surplus

Senator GRUENING. May I interrupt?

Mr. LOWELL. Yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Which program are you referring to?

Mr. LOWELL. I am referring to the program under Public Law 480, title III, under which, through the Department of Agriculture, these surplus commodities are distributed abroad through church agencies. And I am suggesting there may be a parallel to the operations of this program.

Senator GRUENING. You think that program is not being properly managed?

Mr. LOWELL. I think there have been developed-there have appeared in it certain fissures, certain failures of administration which are rather disquieting. I have cited some of them here. I understand that the situation has been substantially improved, but I am

simply offering them as tendencies to be watched and safeguarded and which might develop in a program of this sort even to more marked degrees. This is a precautionary thing, really.

Senator GRUENING. Are you in favor of these two bills?

Mr. LOWELL. I am in favor of them, with certain-a certain amendment which I am going to propose right at the end.

Senator GRUENING. Go ahead.

Mr. LOWELL. I then go on in this statement, which I will abbreviate, Mr. Chairman, to cite certain practical difficulties in the way of sectarian rivalries which have gone on in connection with the surplus commodities program.

So widespread have been the reports of the abuses connected with surplus commodities distribution through sectarian groups that there should be a full-fledged investigation of these. We understand none has been made; we think that it should be made.

Another practical difficulty which is encountered in the sectarian donation of surplus commodities is the rivalry between the church and the state. It is well known that there was bitter strife over a long period between the Government and the church in Poland over the distribution program there. Since both coveted the prestige that was associated with control of the distribution, commodities actually deteriorated while this protocol dispute went on.

Another program which we believe offers some parallels to what is proposed here is that of the ICA. Certain features of this program have also come under criticism because of church pressures in regard to awards. For instance, in Bolivia, the Muyrina project has been awarded to a religious order, the Salesian Brothers, to the disregard of what has been widely claimed to be a superior bid by another religious group. I realize one must be cautious in the assessment of such situations as these, but there does appear to be some ground for a belief that the successful bidder for the $1,600,000 property achieved success by exerting political influence on the government which made the final determination in the matter. This property has now been turned over to the Order.

It seems evident that in many situations where a state church exists, this church will receive not only the lion's share but perhaps 100 percent of the donations. And you see a counterpart of this in surplus commodities where one church has a monopoly on the donations in certain countries. It is, of course, truthfully contended that this church is the largest church and the best, therefore, equipped to be a donor. Still, the fairplay involved in arrangements of this kind may be suspect.

We should like to state for the record that we have reservations in regard to proposals which have been or will shortly be made to allow military surplus to be used in payment for labor in countries abroad. I realize that this is not involved in this legislation, but I understand that it will shortly be proposed.

Labor-the payment would be for labor in the nature of public works. There may be a loose interpretation of public works against which we should guard. It is conceivable that public works, unless rigorously defined, might be construed as including construction of sectarian institutions.

Now, specifically, Mr. Chairman, we should like to recommend that this legislation give first preference in the distribution program to

institutions which are publicly owned and operated. We believe that such a preferentaial rating for public institutions would tend to bring these procedures far more into harmony with domestic policy. Under the first amendment to the Federal Constitution and the constitutions and statutes in 48 of our States, tax funds are denied to churches and their institutions. Now, there have been certain "health and welfare" grants to church institutions, to be sure, but they have been, with possible exception of the Hill-Burton Act, minor and peripheral.

We have, generally speaking, held here the money line against any general appropriations for church institutions, and we believe this policy has been wise. We believe that we should be cautious about enactments which might create precedents that could later on be cited as a basis for departure from this tradition here in the States. A major factor in the development of church enterprises in this country has been the plan of voluntarism for church support. The resources of the State through taxation have not been available for the building up of oppressive clerical apparatus as has been the case in other lands. And this has made for virility in our church program, which has been the envy of others.

Now, it is argued that to exclude church enterprises from legislation, legislative benefits of this kind, is discrimination against the churches and, in a sense, I think this may be true. Proposals we have made in regard to this legislation would tend to discourage churchrelated and controlled institutions as donees of the military surplus. State operated organizations would be encouraged and even private secular groups might come ahead of sectarian groups. Yet this "discrimination" practiced is simply a logical extension of the principle of the separation of church and state which has been a fortunate feature of American policy. To strengthen and further abroad what we proscribe at home will not aid our national aims. To enhance the image of the state church that may well develop from the operation of such legislation is a further identification of our foreign policy with the idea of a union of state and church. And this, we believe, should be avoided.

Senator GRUENING. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lowell.

Do I understand that the purport of your testimony is that missionary organizations should not be the recipients of foreign excess property?

Mr. LOWELL. No, I would not say that entirely. I should say-I should recommend that publicly owned and managed groups and private nonsectarian groups should take precedence in the distribution, so that we would have somewhat the same image that we have in operations here in our own country.

Senator GRUENING. Well, what would you do in a primitive country such as Ghana? Are there any publicly owned and operated institutions there?

Mr. LOWELL. Frankly, I do not know, Senator.

Senator GRUENING. But I am sure there must be a number of those countries where such institutions do not exist. What would be your proposal under those circumstances?

Mr. LOWELL. Well, of course I would not propose here that the stuff ought to be left to rot or be dumped in the ocean, because you

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »